3 ms·

1. You misunderstand. Going to HR with an unsavory password is a complaint that cannot be disproven. 2. I'm willing to divulge the massive amount of evidence t

1. You misunderstand. Going to HR with an unsavory password is a complaint that cannot be disproven. 2. I'm willing to divulge the massive amount of evidence that exists in my favor, and there's nothing self-serving about my story. In fact, it's a huge embarrassment. I shared it in the interest of getting things a little more straight in the world, not to feel good or look like a great guy. That's the difference. If anything I've said concerns you and you'd like to know more, my email is in my profile.

laughinghan 7y ago
1. I continue not to understand. Which one of these things do you believe to be true? a) The company's reason for firing the guy was the content of the password, not the behavior of harassment, and jedberg was outright lying in claiming otherwise. If so, what basis do you have to believe this? What do you know about the company or the guy that jedberg is talking about other than what jedberg has told us? b) The company's reason for firing was the harassment, but somehow the unsavory password is a complaint of harassment that cannot be disproven. This makes no sense. The content of the password cannot be disproven, of course, because it's in the computer system and so is a plain fact to all observers, but the existence or nonexistence of harassment can of course be disproven, which they checked by asking the officemate (unless you believe jedberg outright lied to us). Hence the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, and going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. The only way in which jedberg's story is self-serving is gaining imaginary points on the Internet, unless you have reason to believe jedberg stands to gain money or something else from writing his story the way he did. If your story is not self-serving because it merely helps you gain sympathy and anecdotally substantiate your argument about how the term "creep" can be used, then neither is jedberg's.

laughinghan 7y ago

1. I continue not to understand. Which one of these things do you believe to be true? a) The company's reason for firing the guy was the content of the password, not the behavior of harassment, and jedberg was outright lying in claiming otherwise. If so, what basis do you have to believe this? What do you know about the company or the guy that jedberg is talking about other than what jedberg has told us? b) The company's reason for firing was the harassment, but somehow the unsavory password is a complaint of harassment that cannot be disproven. This makes no sense. The content of the password cannot be disproven, of course, because it's in the computer system and so is a plain fact to all observers, but the existence or nonexistence of harassment can of course be disproven, which they checked by asking the officemate (unless you believe jedberg outright lied to us). Hence the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, and going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. The only way in which jedberg's story is self-serving is gaining imaginary points on the Internet, unless you have reason to believe jedberg stands to gain money or something else from writing his story the way he did. If your story is not self-serving because it merely helps you gain sympathy and anecdotally substantiate your argument about how the term "creep" can be used, then neither is jedberg's.